Malinias v. The Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sario Malinias and Roy S. Pilando were candidates for governor and congressional representative, respectively, of Mountain Province in the May 11, 1998 elections. They alleged that on May 15, 1998, their supporters were blocked by a police checkpoint at Nacagang, Sabangan, Mountain Province, preventing them from attending the canvassing of election returns at the Provincial Capitol Building in Bontoc. They claimed that policemen, upon orders of Victor Dominguez, Teofilo Corpuz, and Anacleto Tangilag, prevented their supporters from entering the capitol grounds, thus disrupting the canvassing process. Procedural History: Malinias and Pilando filed a complaint with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)'s Law Department against Dominguez, Corpuz, Tangilag, and others, for violation of Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6646 and Sections 232 and 261(i) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. The COMELEC Law Department conducted a preliminary investigation, after which it recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of probable cause. The COMELEC en banc dismissed the complaint, finding insufficient evidence to establish probable cause against the respondents. The Petition: Malinias filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint. He contended that the COMELEC erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the alleged violations of election laws. He asserted that his right to be present and to counsel during the canvass was violated, and that the respondents engaged in partisan political activity.
Issue(s)
Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Malinias and Pilando’s complaint for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for alleged violation of Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6646? Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Malinias and Pilando’s complaint for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for alleged violation of Section 232 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881? Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Malinias and Pilando’s complaint for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for alleged violation of Section 261 (i) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881?
Ruling
The petition was dismissed, and the assailed Resolutions of the COMELEC were affirmed. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for alleged violation of Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6646, which pertains to the right to be present and to counsel during the canvass. Malinias failed to substantiate his claim that he was denied his right to be present during the canvassing. The Court noted that Pilando, Malinias's fellow complainant, was present and actively participated in the canvassing. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Republic Act No. 6646 does not punish a violation of Section 25 as a criminal election offense, as Section 27 of the same Act, which specifies the election offenses, does not include Section 25. The Court also found that the allegation that Malinias's supporters were blocked by a checkpoint was not corroborated by the supporters themselves. On Issue 2: The Court held that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for alleged violation of Section 232 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, which prohibits certain persons from entering the canvassing room. The Court pointed out that Section 232 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 is not one of the election offenses explicitly enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of the same law. Applying the rule of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court reasoned that there was no ground to order the COMELEC to prosecute the respondents for alleged violation of Section 232, as this is a non-criminal act. The Court clarified that while a violation of Section 232 may warrant administrative penalties, it is not punishable as a criminal election offense. The Court also noted that the evidence presented by Malinias, consisting mainly of affidavits from his supporters, was insufficient to justify a finding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. On Issue 3: The Court determined that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for alleged violation of Section 261 (i) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, which prohibits intervention of public officers and employees in any election campaign or partisan political activity. The Court found that while Corpuz and Tangilag admitted ordering the setting up of the checkpoint, they did so to enforce the COMELEC’s firearms ban, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2968. There was no clear indication that these police officers intended to favor the other candidates, nor was there proof to show that they unreasonably exceeded their authority in implementing the COMELEC rules. The Court concluded that the act of setting up the checkpoint was in accordance with their duty to maintain peace and order and was not tainted with any color of political activity.
Main Doctrine
The doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is a canon of statutory construction which means that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others. This principle is used to interpret statutes restrictively, confining their terms to those expressly mentioned. It is based on the idea that the legislature would not have made a specific enumeration if it did not intend to restrict the statute's meaning to those items. In the context of election law, this means that if a particular act is not explicitly listed as an election offense, it cannot be penalized as such, even if it is unlawful.